Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion)

Jump to: navigation, search

Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Closing instructions

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

Shortcuts: WP:TFD WP:TD

On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

[edit] How to use this page

[edit] What not to propose for discussion here

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates

Stub templates and categories should be listed at Stub types for deletion.
Userboxes

Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates

If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{Db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
Policy or guideline templates

Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the Csd templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects

List at Redirects for discussion.

[edit] Reasons to delete a template

Shortcut: WP:TFD#REASONS

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
The template is redundant to a better-designed template
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

[edit] Listing a template

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

I

Tag the template.

Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

For deletion: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=sidebar}}
For deletion of an inline template: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=inline}}
For merging: {{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}}
For merging an inline template: {{Tfm-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}}

Leave the text PAGENAME as is – do not change it to the actual name of the page.
If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
Do not mark the edit as minor.
Use an edit summary like
Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
or
Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]

Multiple nominations: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|discussion title}} or {{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template|discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

II

List the template at Tfd.

Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

For deletion:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
For merging:

{{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

Use an edit summary such as Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 20 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}

III

Notify users.

It is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then add

For deletion: {{subst:Tfdnotice|template name}} ~~~~
For merging: {{subst:Tfmnotice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~

to the talk pages of these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page), so that they are aware of the discussion. (There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: you should write a personal message in these cases.)

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

[edit] Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] February 23

[edit] Template:JEL code

weird, nonstandard side box which mostly just adds pages to a category. Categories should be added directly rather than via templates; furthermore, this is being used in articlespace, and it definitely doesn't belong there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Deportivo Independiente Medellin squad

Template is improper. Not used anywhere. Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Uw-dontremovewarnings

Delete: This template is contrary to the guideline, WP:OWNTALK, that users may remove almost all warnings from their own user talk pages. The items that may not be removed is listed at WP:BLANKING and WP:OWNTALK. —teb728 t c 07:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Note: When I went to notify the template creator, I found they are indef blocked. —teb728 t c 07:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete created by a banned user. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- The editor is not banned, just indefinitely blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arguably a speedy deletion candidate under WP:T2: unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy. Robofish (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sustainable energy

Delete. The topic is adequately covered by ~~Template:Renewable energy~~ Template:Renewable energy sources. Note that renewable energy is by definition sustainable energy. The topic is also a bit "messy" to be constrained by a template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Template is redundant. - Jorgath (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Query -- Template:Renewable energy seems to redirect to Template:Sustainable energy, so the topic wouldn't be covered by the former if the latter were deleted..? 213.246.121.83 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Quite. Unless the nominator has made a typo, this appears to be a mistaken nomination of a template as redundant to... itself, via a redirect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep – Invalid reason for deletion as explained by Chris. No prejudice against renomination if a suitable reason is found. – Allen4names 08:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Correction. It is redundant to Template:Renewable energy sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - It is a more informative template than Renewable energy. If one has to be deleted, delete Renewable instead.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that it is less informative since it does not truly represent a complex topic. Template:Renewable energy sources is what a template should be - short and succinct. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For better or worse, we have no clear guidelines on exactly how broadly sidebar templates should link. Thanks for the correction to the nom: my opinion is that it is preferable to merge {{renewable energy sources}} to {{sustainable energy}} (as the latter term is technically a superset of the former) and to start a discussion on the merged template talk regarding the removal of material deemed superfluous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I think that the discussion at Talk:Renewable_energy (RFC: Which navbox to use?) and arguments presented there are relevant for this discussion. Beagel (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - It is a more informative and provides better coverage than Renewable energy. Additionally the Renewable energy template is non-standard, and is out of place in Wikipedia. Delete Renewable energy instead. LK (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Template:Sustainable energy is more "non-standard". I like the idea of consistent templates but is being "non-standard" a reason for deletion? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How can you state with a straight face that Template:Renewable energy sources is more standard? AFAIK, there is no other navigation sidebar on Wikipedia that looks like it. OTOH, there are numerous sidebars that look like Template:Sustainable energy, just to name a few of the A's we have Template:Anarchism sidebar, Template:Agriculture, Template:Acids and bases, Template:Anime and manga, Template:Anglicanism, Template:Austrian School sidebar, Template:American cuisine. There are literally hundreds more. Most use Template:Sidebar as a base. LK (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sidebars might not have become universally template-based like navboxes and infoboxes, but they're getting there. There should certainly be a good reason for current examples not to be based on {{sidebar}}. Nevertheless, the main problem here is the redundancy fo two sidebar templates covering the same area with <100 transclusions between them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete There seems to be a huge support at the main discussion for the renewable energy template, with better rationales. The main discussion is at Talk:Renewable energy --Extra999 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Sustainable energy navbox. There is considerable support for the RE navbox at Talk:Renewable_energy#RFC:_Which_navbox_to_use?, because it is smaller, cleaner, and more suitable for RE articles. Merging the RE and SE navboxes would just create problems. Consider a normal bottom-of-the-page navigation template for Sustainable energy. Johnfos (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Change to bottom-of-the-page navigation template. Change the Sustainable energy sidebar into bottom-of-the-page navigation template. However, it still needs cleanup and if changed into mbottom-of-the-page navigation template, also some additions. Merging these two sidebars is not good solution. Lets keep the Renewable energy template small as it is and have more comprehensive bottom navigation template. Beagel (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - seems too broad for a navbox, when you consider the large number of articles that could potentially be considered related to 'sustainable energy'. {{Renewable energy}} is more tightly focused, and seems to be supported by local consensus at Talk:Renewable energy. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Much broader than just renewable energy sources, and it's not messy or incomplete, so I see no reason to delete it. Liam98 7 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Convert to Infobox Settlement

Per previous, various TFD discussions such as this one, this one and this one, the community has rejected proposals to delete or merge all these similar infobox templates into {{infobox settlement}}. So why is there a talk page template that still suggests such a conversion – and is being used on the talk pages of these same infobox templates that were previously up for deletion? One instance has already been recently removed for this reason.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The goal of consolidating templates has merit and the fact that some don't get it and some discussions went awry is not a valid reason to knock this back. Alarbus (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, we don't really need a cleanup template for this: it's usually quite a lot of work to carry out these requests, and not something that many users are capable of. I'd prefer a tracking category like category:settlement infoboxes not based on infobox settlement on the template pages themselves which doesn't imply that this is simply uncontroversial cleanup work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cleanup-tracklist

This is not normative--anyone can use the tracklisting template or not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete It pointed to a section at WP:Albums that no longer existed before I changed it to point to the template. From the history it appears I inadvertently changed it back to the version that got nominated last time. In any case I don't really see a point in having a template telling someone to use a template. There is nothing wrong with having the track listing as a list and if someone wants to put them in templates they should do it themselves instead of asking someone else to. AIRcorn (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete since there is nothing saying {{tracklist}} must absolutely be used. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pbrk

This odd paragraph used to be used in a lot of Template:Military navigation; mostly Template:Campaign. It worked poorly and has been deprecated, and is now pretty much an orphan. Time to get rid of it. Alarbus (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that we now have a more elegant way of accomplishing the same result, I have no problem with deleting this. I assume that the remaining (non-archive) transclusions can be changed to use the new mechanism? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Syrian Air Force

hard coded and not used in Syrian Air Force. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as above; wiki debris. Alarbus (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 22

[edit] Template:Harvest (band)

navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - only link is to the band's main page; template appears to have very little value. Gongshow ^Talk 06:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kavalactones

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The one use of this template was substituted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Template:B.A.P

not enough useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The template seems a bit premature for now; perhaps once/if articles are created for the charted album and single. Gongshow ^Talk 06:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox MLB manager

Only no transclusions (2 before I fix them). Template:Infobox MLB player does the job better. Check [2]. I think we should delete this one and rename the Infobox MLB player to Infobox MLB biography. -- Magioladitis (talk) Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix Suns game logs

Phoenix Suns game logs

Subst and delete single-use templates per precedent at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_16#Game_logs, among others. Note to closer: I'm willing to help with substing. TimBentley (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously now. How many of these are there? Subst and delete per all the rest. Reso lute 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and Delete I had started doing each for the teams but got side tracked since my last nom of some. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ann Township

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

~~With two working links, I doubt this navigation box serves any navigation purpose.~~Withdrawn Muhandes (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Userfy if someone would like it and Delete per nominator's simple rationale. I know userfication is redundant because nothing is lost form Wikipedia, but it may provoke creation of the relevant articles. I'm for anything that provokes new notable articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep This template was made for a reason, didn't that occur to you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - looks very essential to me, actually. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
keep, comment out the red links if you don't like them, but the articles are being written. Frietjes (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn The template stood seven months with two working links. However, I see articles are now slowly being written (four were created yesterday), so the rationale I gave no longer applies. --Muhandes (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Template:Jennette McCurdy

Links only three articles right now (the fourth is a redirect). WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sleepthief

at first glance this might look like it has some useful navigation, but if you look closer, the links are all to other artists who have made guest appearances, and none of the albums, singles, etc. have working links. Frietjes (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox journalist

redundant to the far more richly featured {{Infobox person}}. The only unique parameters appear to be |alias= & |credits=, whose functionality can be provided by |other_names= and |organisation=/ |television= respectively; or they could be added to the latter template. Conversely, the template under discussion lacks many of the useful parameters of {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Template:Infobox writer there is much in common: journalists are, by and large, writers who specialise in stories of immediate interest. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. A writer and a journalist is not the same thing. I would hate for a journalist to have an writer/actor infox. That's just not right. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete in favour of infobox person; nothing will be lost except a maintenance headache. This is normal practise. Alarbus (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom, just use {{infobox person}}. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep due to the widespread notability of journalists. Many wiki pages contain this template and to change this would be both pointless and time consuming. Journalists are different from writers, and the inclusion of notable 'credits' within the info box is crucial distinction from {{infobox person}} which in my opinion merits the status quo. Uvghifds (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 21

[edit] 2011–12 NBA game logs

2011–12 NBA game logs

Subst and delete single-use templates (Minnesota had been removed from season article, now it's substed) per precedent at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_16#Game_logs, among others. It's just as easy (or easier) to update the season articles as the templates. Note to closer: I'm willing to help with substing. TimBentley (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Subst and delete: Per nom. Tampabay721 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete per previous discussions. Single use templates. Reso lute 15:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mocca

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Old and unused. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per above; the only article is the band's parent page. Gongshow ^Talk 20:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CompactDocToc

Loooong-deprecated way of adding template documentation on the template talk page, before we had {{documentation}}. Now removed from any current template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused and obsolete. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Paleontology

Infobox which never caught on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused and old. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem was that dinosaurs all have a taxobox that takes up the same position. Is there any way to fix that? --Kaz (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Paleontology is not unique to dinosaurs. If it is deirable to add paleological information to an article's infobox, the logical move would be to add it to {{taxobox}} directly so that all extinct or ancient species benefit from it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Support modifying {{Taxobox}}, per Chris Cunningham. 11:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

[edit] Template:Def

Unused utility template which duplicates in-build handling of definitions using the semicolon operator. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused; template markup is greater than standard wikimarkup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment shouldn't this be using DL lists with DT and DI ? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Daybar

Blanked six years ago, so obviously not doing anything of note any more. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused and useless. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NHLPlayoffTOC

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Unused, unnecessary. Reso lute 15:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:American Center for Voting Rights

Unnecessary template: used on a single article, and there the existing {{Infobox organization}} seems entirely sufficient for that purpose. Robofish (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite doi/doi:10.1371.2Fjournal.pbio.0040202

Bad title, with duplicate doi. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

speedy delete as G6: "pages unambiguously created in error" ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
speedy delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ColorTOC

Replaced by {{horizontaltoc}}, which doesn't need to hardcode the names of the sections. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Prefer the former. As someone who watches and edits that article the former TOC is better, the hardcode names of the sections are useful...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hardcoded names are less maintainable. {{Horizontaltoc}} gives exactly the same links as output; if its formatting needs improved (such as to remove the heading numbers) that can be worked on separately. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Chris it's a difficult article to work on - having the color names makes it a little easier to navigate. See what you can do...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    - The colour names are still in {{horizontaltoc}}. I think the ideal layout for that template will require the numbers to be hidden, which means the site's CSS needs to be updated. I have an idea of who to ask about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete, there is no need for a hardcoded TOC. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Thumperward and Frietjes; {{Horizontal TOC}} with class="hlist" is much more appropriate per WP:HLIST. Alarbus (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
keep {{horizontaltoc}} is new and unused, and I can see why. It includes the section numbers which are just ugly in this type of TOC. Recommend this be closed until the technical issues are resolved.
- See this version of List of colors. I can't recommend use of {{horizontaltoc}} until the numbers are suppressed.
- But, {{ColorTOC}} needs work. There is a lot of excess markup and it can be classed with hlist for accesibility. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I agree for now with User:Gadget's recommendation although keep as it is works best...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep This template is very important and useful to allow people to easily navigate to different parts of the long list of colors article. This template should be left it the way it is. Keraunos (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. The new template also has better accessibility and standards-compliance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep new template is extremely ugly and not ready for action. It needs more work before it can replace "ColorTOC". In total, both templates are used on exactly one article. That will survive until the new template has matured. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ListOfMuseumsByUSStateTOC

A pseudo-TOC which is really a navbox, and thus duplicates the more sensibly implemented {{Museums in the US}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Appears to serve no purpose not already adequately served by {{Museums in the US}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ListByUSStateTOC

{{TOC US states}} but with a huge image map stuck in it. It is somewhat unlikely that we have readers who can find a state on a map without being able to name it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Appears to serve no purpose not already adequately served by {{TOC US states}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOC nest right

Unused in articlespace and broken, seemingly without anyone noticing, in other namespaces for nearly a year. The niche for which this template was designed never really required it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Even if it were used, we already have standardized ToC templates that can be used instead. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:More plot

This template needs to be discussed, not deleted. Many articles that transclude this template are wrongly tagged, and they already have sufficient plot summaries. The link is to an essay within a template, not to policy, and needs to be altered. Here are transclusions as examples of the problem: [3]. Also, the "More plot" name contradicts the words and doc of this template; so a rename from "more plot" to "copyedit plot" might be in order, and help reduce incorrect usage. Note: this template was discussed in User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions#"No plot" and "more plot"; also, I must give a "thank you" to Begoon for an assistance of this message. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I do recommend a quick look at the discussion George links, as it explains the thinking behind this request. There are 3 main aspects we looked at:

The template should be renamed to {{copyedit plot}} or {{improve plot}} or similar, since its name is at odds with its displayed content. The word "more" may encourage unnecessary lengthening of a plot description, where "copyedit" or "improve" may not.
There are very many transclusions of this template which are unnecessary, and may, possibly encourage the addition of a long, unnecessary plot description.
The wording of the template and docs is not policy, and should be reviewed. For instance, it states that all non-fiction works should have a plot summary. Really? A summary perhaps.

I do see a valid use for this template, but I agree it needs attention to encourage proper use only. This is here rather than RM because the template needs overall discussion, and a move may not be the only solution. Begoon ^talk 06:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Please explain what you mean by "[I]t states that all non-fiction works should have a plot summary. Really? A summary perhaps." I hate to have to point out that a plot summary is, yes, a summary. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a major point, just semantics. Seems to not help describe what the tag actually wants. I'm not sure what the plot of a non-fiction work is. Maybe the work tells a story with a plot, maybe not. As I say, not very important, but possibly confusing to dumb editors like me :-). Begoon ^talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Duh! Sorry, I missed the "non-" part. Yeah, this template should not be used on non-fiction works. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedily close: Someone suggested deletion, so speedy keeping on a process basis is off the table. This is a WP:RM issue, and should be discussed on the template's talk page. TfD is the wrong venue, and no clear proposal we can support or oppose has been made here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that might be a response, but since there were several possible outcomes, of which deletion could still be one, I didn't feel it would hurt. I'm sure George would be happy to move the discussion if it is deemed out of process. Begoon ^talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not that it hurts, it's just premature. This should easily be resolvable at the template's own talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point. Seems we had xFD "stuck" in our minds after the start of the linked discussion, and forgot it was now really an RM as you say. Begoon ^talk 07:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this should certainly be kept as a TfD, because the template in question should be killed with fire. If there is one single aspect of Wikipedia which does not need improving, it is out coverage of plot material! The potential for misuse here is simply too great to warrant its existence. Nor is a move to "copyedit plot" or the like necessary, when {{copyedit}} already takes a section flag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that's the sort of comment I was hoping for in wider discussion. Good point with {{copyedit}} and the section flag. That sounds like a good solution. One of the options we discussed was deletion and use of another template, but we didn't spot that. Too simple, I guess. I think that works for me. Begoon ^talk 07:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

See Template talk:Copy edit; the template is already being abused almost as badly as {{Cleanup}}. Proposing a "hey, we can just convert all of these to yet more cases of {{copyedit}}" pseudo-solution is contraindicated. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As a prolific {{copyedit}} spammer myself, I'm not particular opposed to it being used as a catch-all "rough diamond requires attention" tag. I don't see why {{copyedit|plot section}} is suboptimal for the use case described. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: "See Template talk:Copy edit". Objections have been raised by people who care a lot more than I do. Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Anybody here can vote delete or keep if possible. In fact, the goal of this discussion is to discuss; voting can be optional but beneficial. --George Ho (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep: This exists for a reason. It is not a general "drive-by tagging" pointless template like {{cleanup}} (I can't believe that thing survived TfD again), nor does it flag something so uncommon and peculiar that having a template for it is pointless (like original research with regard to a coat of arms, a template presently at TfD). While we do have {{All plot}} for excessive plot summary fanwankery, which certainly does happen, the clear fact of the matter is that an enormous number of articles on works of fiction in various media have plot summaries that are basically one-liners or little more, and do not serve our readers' encyclopedic interests. If the template needs to be renamed or have its wording altered, be my guest and have at it. Deletion would be a mistake. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a look through the existing transclusions and I really don't buy that this is a pressing enough problem to warrant a cleanup tag, or indeed any central action at all. Lemonade Mouth is nearly all plot, though it lacks a narrative. That's a matter of general copyediting. The Accident Man and Assassin (Cain novel) contain absolutely perfectly-sized blurbs for their overall lengths. Ingenious Pain, Outlaw (novel), One Morning Like a Bird and King's Man could do with a little plot expansion, but again they explain the key plot element in each case and some of the themes while devoting a far larger amount of time to the much more important aspect of the cultural impact of the works. The vast majority of our coverage of fiction is weighted completely the opposite way and ignores the cultural impact of fictional works in favour of droning on about what happens in them. We should do everything in our power not to encourage that any more than we already do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That some editors have misapplied the template where it isn't appropriate is not an actual argument for deletion. The fact (which I concede, I assure you) that many of our articles on fiction lean too much toward {{all plot}} does not mean that the opposite sort of article, with a "user-hateful" level of near-nothing plot summary, are not also problematic and somehow don't need to be fixed. It's an apples/oranges logic issue. Just because hypoglycemia is far more prevalent than hyperglycemia doesn't mean we don't test for and treat the latter condition. PS: The template is relatively recent so it is to be expected that it use is not yet widespread and stabilized. The template was not "advertised" at the Pump or otherwise, so usage is naturally low and spotty so far. Again, not a real rationale for deletion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what is "user hateful" about short plot sections. The truly aenemic can be tagged with the existing {{expand section}}, which does not come with implications of an expected minimum verbosity for plot sections specifically as a new tag does. {{Spoiler}} might be long gone, but if you asked the average editor (as opposed to, say, the average high school student with a late homework assignment) whether our plot sections should be less or more detailed in general, I'd hope for the answer to be "less". Blurb-style plot sections should be encouraged IMO, especially over user-generated narratives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so how do we get that goal while also getting at the goal of fixing "It is a movie about a guy in Manhattan who falls in love and then they move to New Jersey and a lot of funny stuff happens" so-called plot summaries? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I simply don't believe this is a common enough problem (especially compared to the opposite issue) to warrant a separate cleanup tag. {{plot}} specifically links to a part of the MoS where we explain what we want from our plot sections and why too much detail is bad. We have no such advice for plot sections which happen to be too short, because hey, people intuitively seem to grasp that we should make an effort to explain the plot of a fictional work in its article. Usually with both hands. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As the person who added the tag to Lemonade Mouth, I'd like to point out that I couldn't find a more fitting tag to explain the situation that was going on when I added it. A well-meaning editor added TONS of info on the characters, and I discovered this. I added an {{All plot}} tag to the article itself (since it is entirely plot), and I added {{more plot}} and {{overly detailed}} to the plot and characters sections, respectively. Since I haven't read the book, I wasn't sure what was important to the plot and didn't feel comfortable moving/deleting information unless it seemed/was obviously unimportant/trivial (i.e. "Olivia carries a Scooby Doo backpack", etc.). - Purplewowies (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep, on the same basis as SMcCandlish above: that this template is misused does not mean it is useless, and some of our articles do have excessively brief plot summaries. I don't think there are any precise guidelines on the subject, but clearly a few sentences to summarise the plot of an epic, multivolume novel saga would be too short, just as many detailed paragraphs about one short story would be too long. I say 'weak' keep because I take Chris Cunningham's point above that {{expand section}} could do this job just as well, but there is arguably some value to being able to identify the articles specifically lacking plot detail. Robofish (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: If {{expand section}}'s (or whatever's) documentation explicitly provided such a case as an example, I probably wouldn't have an objection to phasing this template out. I really couldn't care less about the code or the page name, just about article improvement. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Would "phasing this template out" imply deletion? If not, what would it? --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Characters on The West Wing

Delete. I have redirected some of the articles with issues. Some of the links were already redirs. The template is now superfluous due to the very few remaining useful links. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - boldly blanking through redirecting? Then trying to delete the nav template? There are innumerable of these types of nav templates for television shows, and quite a few other things. - jc37 07:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lists of characters may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Organisational charts for fictional US Administrations masquerading as navboxes, however, are not appropriate in any circumstances. The navigational value of this template is minimal, and thus it is unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Just as useful as any of the others in Category:Drama television navigational boxes. - jc37 07:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    - No it isn't. All the organisational fluff and duplication makes it far harder to use as an actual navigation tool than the standard navboxes. If all that cruft were stripped out and it reformatted as a normal navbox like {{Grey's Anatomy}} it might be appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 19#Template:Mama's Family for directly comparable "redirect and TfD" issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, but restructure. Most of the links here exist as separate articles rather than redirects, which means a navigational template is useful. But this template is made less useful by its structure that lists the characters based on their role in the show, resulting in some characters being linked more than once. If kept, this template should be restructured into a simple list of characters arranged alphabetically rather than by their fictional position. That would make it clearer that this is a Wikipedia navigational template rather than a guide to the show. (Compare {{GalacticaCharacters}} for an example of what this should look like.) Robofish (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kevin Harvick Inc.

This navbox is no longer used; the team it was for is now defunct, and the navbox itself contains no "past" info, just now-out-of-date 2011 info with no provision for "past" data. All drivers have moved on to other teams; there is no longer any need for the box to be kept. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom - unused template for defunct team. Robofish (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment/Delete Is the information in the navbox included in the main article? A cursory look suggests yes, but there may be something in the box that ought to be in the article but isn't. I support deletion conditionally, because care needs to be taken not to lose notable information. The team itself is notable, since notability is not transient. - Jorgath (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:THBSOIR

~~Template with a smell of copyvio from the mentioned source.~~ Usefull template???? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Striked out the copyvio. Hopelessly wrong argument. My apologies. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Renomination: It is not a frivolous nomination, but badly worded. My main concern is the content, the Top 100 Ticket Selling Station. Why that choice? There are so many train stations in India, that this is an almost random choice. What is the added value of this template? Next a template of the Top 100 Loss Making Stations? Or a template of the Top 100 Where Trains Are Passing Without Stopping? I absolutely don's see the added value of template, hence my question if it is a useful template. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Its not a copy vio! The website belongs to Indian Railways and the page mentions the top 100 profitable stations in India. This is a general information. Now, we all can create stub templates here and there about major stations in India without any proof and what I provided is an actual proof. The site is for general purpose ie for passengers to know about their trains and It is maintained by IR. After all its not a book of an author for you to nominate the template on account of copy vio. Kindly check my contributions. Now providing reference in Wikipedia is such a big crime, thats it, its my last edit here!!! arun talk 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Please read WP:DIVA. Threatening to quit Wikipedia doesn't impress anyone, does not make your argument seem stronger, and will not affect the outcome of any debate here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikimate, I am not here to impress anyone or to show off! My concern is just that today Wikipedia is just limited in hands of few "privileged" users who command things and do it their way and do not care for other editors contributions. This is not how Wikipedia used to be when I created my account and started contributing! Those words were just my frustration. Coming to the point, yes, this template is useful. It lists the top 100 earning stations under Indian Railways with reference! Might be the heading needs to be changed. But the template is 100% useful. arun talk 16:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 2a (frivolous nomination). Those who do not understand copyright law should not nominate things for deletion based on copyright arguments. Lists of bare facts like names of train stations are not subject to copyright. (IANAL, but I worked for a non-profit law firm for 9 years, one of the major specialties of which was copyright law, so I do in fact know what I'm talking about.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment At a minimum, this needs documentation so an uniformed editor can understand the use and criteria. Ditto for the title and the template name.
Comment: The "top-x" ranking of things seems to be one of the most common classification systems we have. Seven wonders of the world, American Top 40, Top ten list, Fortune 500, etc. Why is this one different? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And those are notable enough for most folks to understand as well as having articles. "Top 100 booking stations of Indian Railways": top in traffic, ticket sales, awards? Not enough context for me to tell if "booking station" is the name of the sales office or if it refers to ticket sales. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So the main problem seems to be naming method used! well, I guess if we change the name of the template to "Most Profitable Railway Stations in India", then common people would understand! arun talk 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: If you refer history as well, we never keep the count of losers, for example in Olympics, we do take a list of 1st, 2nd and third but never the last ones. The most profitable stations in India needs to be recognized. If I go by the way of my friend who nominated the template for deletion, we need to seriously reconsider some of other templates such as Top ten tennis players etc. arun talk 16:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the chosen 100 stations seems a bit like a random choice with no real reason other then a website for it. What is the added value of this template? A Top 100 of busiest stations makes more sense. A Top 5 (or Top 10) busiest stations per state even more. A busy station seems more important (to me) then a busy ticket desk. It is certainly not the case that I want to destroy the template or don't appreciate Indian railway stations, but the plain choice of stations. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not just any other website! It is the website of the Indian Railways. Those are top hundred booking stations. Top booking stations means top profitable stations and top profitable stations means major rail hubs in India! It is Indian Railways that is recognizing the stations as important, not me or some website. It is not a random choice as well. India has millions of such rail hubs, but these are top 100. This perfectly makes sense! The only problem and my mistake, I admit, is the template heading, which of-course can be changed like " Major Rail Hubs in India' or so forth! arun talk 16:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 20

[edit] Template:Hurricane season bar gap

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

pointless additional markup with a dubious aesthetic gain and a negative impact to output readability and accessibility. If additional whitespace is necessary it should be added automatically by CSS rather than manually with junk HTML. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep. That's a completely nonsensical argument. The template is there to save on markup (and thus reduce clutter) and increase accessibility. Writing

...
{{Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=storm
 |stormname=Jose
 |strength=Tropical Storm
 |linkname=Tropical Storm Jose (2005)
 |storminitial=J
}}
</tr><tr>
{{Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=cat5
 |stormname=Katrina
 |strength=Category 5
 |linkname=Hurricane Katrina
 |storminitial=K
}}
...

(which can happen in multiple times per template for active seasons) instead of

...
{{Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=storm
 |stormname=Jose
 |strength=Tropical Storm
 |linkname=Tropical Storm Jose (2005)
 |storminitial=J
}}
{{hurricane season bar gap}}
{{Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=cat5
 |stormname=Katrina
 |strength=Category 5
 |linkname=Hurricane Katrina
 |storminitial=K
}}
...

Is neither cleaner, nor more user-friendly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 2a (frivolous nomination). It's part of a template system, and this sort of thing (e.g. {{collapse bottom}}, {{refend}}, {{glossend}}, etc.) is completely normal. Wikipedia editors should not have to learn HTML, much less learn how to interpret MediaWiki template code so well that they can figure out what HTML is missing in order to use templates. It's everyday WP practice to provide template "wrappers" for HTML geekery like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- D'oh, I misread the output. I'd somehow assumed it simply output a blank line, rather than being a new row marker. Happy to withdraw. Erm, but less of the accusations of the nom being "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's WP:SK 2, not WP:SK 2a. It's unfortunate that they're nested that way, but I didn't write that page. No implication of vandalism implied. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 11:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Template:Grey's Anatomy Season 1

Almost ~~All~~all the episodes of this template have been redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

delete, not the way we usually do things. the succession links in the infobox are enough. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:McGuinness Flint

almost all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Macadoshis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

no parent article, and almost all redlinks or redirects. Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Template:Independent

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent creation, no reason why a single link needs to be a template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fix up article and delete as test edit. The only transclusion in article space (see Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album)#Critical reception) has the following: <ref name="independent">{{independent |class=album | label=Lana Del Rey – ''Born to Die'' > Review |last=Gill |first=Andy |accessdate=Feb 20, 2012}}</ref> which seems to be the debris left behind following this series of GF edits. Unfortunately it's hidden a valid pre-existing ref which is also named <ref name="independent">.

I've seen something like this before - new editor, unfamiliar with wikicode, sees that many refs are of the form <ref name=something>{{cite ...}}</ref> and thinks that the name and double braces are both mandatory parts of the ref. They wish to cite from The Independent, so put <ref name=Independent>{{Independent}}</ref>. Usually this is the end of the story: but they may look at the refs section and wonder why it's come up red, so click on it and find that they "need" to create a page. In goes the URL, job done. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Template:Fukushima I nuclear accidents/about

unused, hardcoded hatnote. Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Subst into Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, where it was used. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

why would we substitute it into an article that already has a hatnote? Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CompactTOCrefs

Hardcoded instances of {{compactTOC8}}. Recommend that these be substituted, as the code is simple enough to be included directly in the relevant articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Subst and delete per nom. I created CompactTOC8 to be flexible specifically so this kind of junk would stop being created. This !vote applies also to all the others of this sort nominated below. (Actually, CompactTOC8 was intended to replace all the other compacttoc templates, too, and eventually reside at Template:CompactTOC, and this was decided at TfD several years ago as what to do, but no one ever did it, and not being an admin, I can't do it, because most of them are full-protected). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm aiming to do once this batch of nominations is complete. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Finally! (It's been just short of 5 years.) NB: Just to be clear, I'm talking about replacement of {{CompactTOC2}}, etc., too, not just the weird ones you're TfDing here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lockheed Constellation production list TOC

Unused, and isn't a TOC anyway: it's a proto-sidebar for content which really doesn't need it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as unused and replaceable with standardized templates even if it were. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOCDecades

single-use hardcoded horizontal TOC. The sole transclusion would not be adversely affected by using a standard TOC layout or {{TOClimit}} instead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: One-transclusion templates serve no purpose, and this is replaceable with standardized templates even if it were used. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOCDecades50

Extremely short horizontal hardcoded TOCs. Even if they weren't redundant to {{horizontaltoc}}, articles will not be adversely affected by having a vertical TOC for such a short list. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all. Easily replaceable with standardized templates; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CompactEMD

Hard-coded, single-use TOC template which simply duplicates the section headers in a horizontal format. Redundant to {{horizontaltoc}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CompactTOC8CYM

Unused minor variant of {{compactTOC8}}, which already has a gazillion options. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized templates even if it were used; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:GeoTemplate/TOC

Unused minor TOC variant (contrary to the documentation, it isn't used at {{GeoTemplate}}). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template even if it were used; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MTGkeywordsTOC

Single-use TOC template which is probably too detailed for its own good, with per-paragraph links. Deleting this and using something like {{TOClimit}} to keep the TOC length sane would not adversely affect the browseability of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the complicated TOC is that the article's intended browseability is for the reader to get immediately to the keyword they're interested in. The TOC condenses the list of keywords into one list, whereas TOC limit|3 splits them up by category (and occupies a lot of vertical space), and TOC limit|2 has no keywords in it at all. I'll look into {{CompactTOC8}} later, as it looks roughly like what I want, aside from that I don't want A...Z links. But I do believe that removing the keyword links would adversely affect the browseability of the article. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. The A...Z links are killable if you want to kill them. That said, the idea that every single keyword in this glossary should individually appear in the ToC is highly questionable. I can't think of any other article like that on the entire system, including very rich glossary articles like Glossary of cue sports terms. The MOS:GLOSS draft guideline leans strongly away from this sort of thing, and in fact Template:CompactTOC8 was developed (by me, so I should know :-) specifically for alphabetic list/glossary articles of this sort. There is nothing magically (no pun intended) special about MTG that would require a ToC so bloated no one will actually read it. Readers can get immediately to the keyword they are interested in by clicking on "D" or "M" or whatever, and finding the entry there. If this problematic and cleanup-tagged-to-death article ever had such an overwhelming number of "D"- or "M"-initial entries that it was actually difficult to find an entry, the template supports more arbitrary usage, such as "Da–Dn" and "Do–Dz". It's a short article as such lists go, so this will never arise anyway. If CompactTOC8 is good enough for a big glossary page like the one I just linked to, then it's perfectly fine for this MTG page full of WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE violations, while it still exists, which might not be long, since I doubt I'm the only one who's noticed it's non-encyclopedic trivia. PS: Even if what this erstwhile template is doing were ideal, it would still be subst'd and deleted, since it's a single-transclusion template and thus serves no purpose as its own page in the template namespace. Dang, I need a nap now. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The keywords aren't listed in alphabetical order entirely, since we've grouped them into categories. It may be a good idea to reconsider that, of course, and I may do that.

This isn't really the place to discuss the four cleanup tags Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) added to that page, nor whether it satisfies or violates WP:NOT. Please redirect such discussion to its talk page. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOCMonths3

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOCContinents

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:C20YearTOCship

Unused and overwrought TOC layout variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOC US states 1

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOC US 48 states 2

I've added a 48states=yes flag to {{TOC US states 2}}, which eliminates the need for a new template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOCPremSeasons

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AFC Challenge Cup squads

Propose merging Template:AFC Challenge Cup squads with Template:AFC Challenge Cup.
Both are related and would be easier/better to have just one template in the same manner as Template:Africa Cup of Nations. Banana Fingers (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge. No reason to have redundant templates, and the "Africa Cup of Nations" template seems like a good model. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nonumtoc

Unused and superfluous alternative TOC layout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CompactTOC8/Dev1

Unused and overwrought variant of a template which already has enough features to do nearly anything. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CONMEBOL TOC

Hugely overwrought manual TOCs which do nothing but lay out the present contents (hard-coded) in a horizontal rather than vertical list. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete CONMEBOL on the grounds that the list is not long enough to justify the level of bloat in the template. Keep UEFA and CAF: there is good reason to avoid a vertical TOC when you're talking about 50+ entries. —WFC— 15:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's hard-coded. I've flung up an absurdly quick example of a way to do this automatically at {{horizontaltoc}} which is already about 80% of the way to obviating the need for this sort of TOC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom, as shown alternatives can be found. Giant Snowman 12:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FGC stations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep, non-admin closure (nominator has retracted the nomination). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the articles about FGC stations actually use this system of naming. Liam98 7 12:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep because when {{s-line}} has |system=FGC, it relies on the existence of {{FGC stations}}. If the generated station names are wrong, either (i) amend Template:FGC stations so that it does follow the appropriate system of naming; or (ii) create suitable redirects. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Liam98 7 13:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong to propose this deletion Liam98 7 13:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] CFL team seasons navboxes

Only duplicates a section of their parent navboxes, (Template:BC Lions, Template:Calgary Stampeders, Template:Edmonton Eskimos, Template:Hamilton Tiger-Cats, Template:Montreal Alouettes, Template:Ottawa Renegades, Template:Ottawa Rough Riders, Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders, Template:Toronto Argonauts, Template:Winnipeg Blue Bombers). 117Avenue (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The "parent navboxes," for the most part, show only CFL seasons (since 1958) whereas the seasons navboxes show a much broader range. Some clubs go back as far as the 1870s, and to include all of those seasons in the "parent navbox" would just add clutter. Cmm3 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think one big list would be more clutter than two boxes. I should have made this a merge request, not a deletion one. 117Avenue (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Having two navboxes when one would suffice is much worse clutter. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Other North American professional sports teams have the same setup (National Football League, National Hockey League, National Basketball Association). Worse comes to worse, I would prefer taking out the "seasons" sections from the parent boxes and keeping the seasons boxes. Cmm3 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No vote. There is no reason for two navboxes to present the same information. However, I am inclined to keep, as the team navboxes are a complete joke, IMNSHO. POV sections ("Important people", redundant links, non-links. As with Cmm3, I personally would rather remove the seasons, division champs and Grey Cup wins) from the main team navboxes. I think two navboxes that are focused on related topics is far, far superior to a giant omnibus navbox that hinders navigation by being such a mess. Reso lute 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lumpkin County, Georgia

Textbook WP:NENAN. Navigates only two towns. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Every county in the United States has navboxes, and there's no reason to make this one different. Moreover, there are twenty-four populated places in the county per the GNIS, so we can write twenty-two more articles that could be placed here. Finally, we delete things based on policy or established guidelines, not based on essays. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Basically what Nyttend said. But I'd prefer more links in it—even if they were redlinks. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with Nyttend-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - part of a scheme; and no doubt more places will attain articles in time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NDP Leaders

Included in Template:NDP, along with much more. 117Avenue (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment perhaps it should be expanded to include provincial leaders? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relation, would someone want to navigate from David Lewis (politician) to Lorne Calvert? 117Avenue (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we would need 12 NDP templates, one for each province, which contains provincial leaders, and a national one. Don't you think one would navigate from one provincial NDP leader to another for the same province? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is why each province has their own box. 117Avenue (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a Template:NDP New Brunswick, or similar. I don't see any template listing the past and present leaders of the provincial parties. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:New Brunswick NDP Leaders, see the other current leaders for the others. 117Avenue (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Redundant. As to expanding the template to include all leaders from all provinces, I don't see the value. As it is, I find that such templates are usually only used to spam low value links to the end of an article (the Wikipedia equivalent to a Google bomb). In my view, it is barely relevant to link the leader of the Alberta ND's in the 1970s to the current leader. It is completely irrelevant to link the leader of the Alberta ND's in the 1970s to that of the Manitoba ND's of the 1980s. The more links you add to a navbox, the less value it holds. Keep the provinces separated. Reso lute 15:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rushden & Diamonds F.C. squad

The club no longer exists so this template serves no purpose. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: That the entity has ceased to exist doesn't mean that articles about it won't. Are you certain that the template will never serve its intended purpose? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Our guidelines on the use of playing squad navboxes suggest they should only be placed on current members of a squad (we don't have per-season versions). As the club no longer exists, it no longer has any players, and those players it did have have (hopefully) registered with other teams and thus been added to new navboxes. We've a long precedent of the same with other dissolved clubs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 19

[edit] Template:Good GIF

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This template gives horrible advice, giving an invalid reason why these images should be kept in GIF format instead of having them easily converted to PNG. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it comes across as horrible. I created it as discussed here with Sfan00_IMG who seems to be a prolific expert on images. The point is that some GIFs could be fairly easy be re-created from scratch (geometric shapes + letters from standard fonts), so let's go ahead and tag those for replacement with efficient storage formats, but some other websites use GIF originals for complex designs. Template:Good GIF only intended for the latter image files, uploaded here under fair use provisions, e.g. school logos; the point is to discourage editors from tagging them inappropriately. What did I get wrong, please? – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, these images can easily be converted to PNG without any loss of quality. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 00:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Ballet multicolumn formatting templates

an unused and somewhat obfuscated way to format text, would be better to just expand this and not use a template given the limited number of potential uses. Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I am the author of these templates and have no objection to the deletion of any of the templates whose names end in (3 columns) nor to the deletion of any of the following:

All of the preceeding are obsolete and I had intended to mark them with {{Db-author}} eventually, but I would ask repectfully that the following be retained:

In the course of this discussion it was agreed to merge the following:

into one big list:

List of New York City Ballet 2008 repertory.

There are similar merged lists for 2009–2012:

One of the main concerns expressed concerning these mergers was to optimize screen space, and doing so without a set of templates — it will be finite in number — is not practical. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ the ones Robertgreer suggests keeping, per previous discussions on the subject, unless some new rationale is presented for deletion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, that they are all redundant to the {{pas de ...}} templates, for example, you can replace {{Agon|...}} with {{Pas de huit|Agon|...}} and you get the exact same output. there is no need for a separate template for each ballet. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Frietjes, then. This isn't an appropriate use of templates. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Zakouski

not necessary, since one can just use template:pas de deux directly. this one would have very limited use, and is overly complicated when there is a much more transparent way to achieve the same format. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I don't see why the template {{pas de deux}} is named that way, it looks like it could be used generally, since there's nothing ballet specific in it. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete after adapting its instances to {{pas de deux}}; it's just a partially hardcoded instance of that template. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

then why would the same rationale not apply to most of the templates listed in the TfD above? Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's not quite the same as {{Pas de deux}} and the devil is in the details. Template:Zakouski reads {{Pas de deux|[[Zakouski (ballet)|Zakouski]]|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}}} and it is within the (ballet)| segment that the devil lies. Zakouski by itself leads to a disambiguation page, and this is true of the titles of the ballets in many other templates (there are a smaller number that simply don't conform to regular pas de deux, pas de trois, pas de quatre formatting.) If you will look at the List of ... articles mentioned above you will see that ballet titles re-appear throughout at random. These templates are a simple, safe and sure method of avoiding inadvertent links to disambiguation pages — I would argue the only method of doing so. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Zvezda aft

gigantic and unused. it's hard to see how this could be used in an article, given the gigantic size. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep, all fixed. --Z 09:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(used in Zvezda (ISS module)#Interior) --Z 09:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Fixed"? So are we going to have an article for probably fire fighting equipment, looks like breathing masks? The links in the image are banal in the extreme, and losing the lot to just include an image normally (or even better, simply listing important equipment underneath in an accessible caption) would be perfectly acceptable. Preferable, even. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Subst and delete: The original nomination rationales are now entirely moot (it isn't "gigantic", it's just a normal sized pic with an image map, and it is in fact used in an article). However, one-transclusion templates serve no purpose, so it should simply be WP:SUBST'd into the article that uses it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Chris Cunningham, the links are banal, mostly not working, and the entire setup is worth less than nothing. Having it as a thumbnail is better. --Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:APS Zakynthos

All this is is a redirect to an article, Zakynthos F.C. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:CSD G5, "uncontroversial maintenance". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ornattukunnel is the one of the main muslim family in Kerala.

This is not a template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - As per T3: Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion. Salvidrim! 16:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete: Per T3 as noted and G5, "uncontroversial maintenance". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Original upload date

Personal template, which could be subst. Given specfic date unlikely to see wider usage. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty useless to me. Delete --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete: One-transclusion templates serve no purpose. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Original caption

Personal template , which could be subst , Not likely to see wider use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, per above. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Subst and delete: One-transclusion templates serve no purpose. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tay-Young

Single usage, why could this not be put as a direct link in the article? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - It's just a youtube link. Salvidrim! 13:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete: One-transclusion templates serve no purpose. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Adventure games Templates

No longer relevant/in-use after associated WikiProject has been merged with WP:VG. Salvidrim! 06:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedily delete as obvious "non-controversial maintenance". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I debated sending to CSD but I felt like it didn't quite match the criteria. Salvidrim! 07:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Symbolism

Yet another overly specific maintenance tag. This does not seem to be a widespread enough problem to warrant a whole template. {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} should do the job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I created this template at the request of User:OrangeMike (who I will ask to comment here). I have no comment on the matter except that I don't really understand the criticism of the template being too specific. Surely the more specific a cleanup template is, the better chance the issue has of being resolved? {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} would seem rather vague in comparison. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - surely specificity rather than vagueness is a good thing? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep this and keep doing this. We should delete the general tags and only allow tags that point to a specific problem. We could perceive this as the tagging system evolving. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Overly specific. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Quite aside from the overly-general name and the garishness of including two icons, if specific unreferenced assertions need to be flagged then it should be done inline. Having topic-specific refimprove tags would open a can of worms larger than the Earth itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I believe this particular concern would be better addressed as an in-line tag than a cleanup banner. Salvidrim! 13:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: This is arcane enough that it should be discussed on the talk page of the article, whether or not some kind of inline cleanup tag is used. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete It's too specific for a (in my eyes) minor problem that could also be handled with other cleanup templates. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ship infobox request

Merge to {{WikiProject Ships}}. Currently, using the needs_infobox=yes field on that template makes this template appear — but most other WikiProject templates simply put a "This article needs an infobox" field in the template, instead of spinning off a whole other template on top of that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Support merger. Also note that the template is not currently tagged for deletion. (I'd tag it myself but I'd be scared of messing it up...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. I would prefer a consolidated approach. —Diiscool (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment There was a reason this template was retained after setting the project banner for the box parameter. See User talk:Brad101/ShipSand to see what the dilemma was. It was thought that since the banner shell was to collapse project banners it wouldn't have been right to ram the box into the shell. I'd prefer that that option remains available. Brad (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Per my above statement. Brad (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Although the ship infobox is part of WP:SHIPS, "ramming" it to the collapsible multiple-project template kind of gives an idea that the article is missing other infoboxes as well. Since it's almost universally the only infobox in the article, I would prefer to have the request (or more precisely an option to use it) as a separate template. Tupsumato (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Uhhh, yeah, ships guys, that's exactly what happens when every other wikiproject template includes needs_infobox=yes. If you dislike that then argue for it centrally: there is no good reason at all to simply ignore that consensus for your own project. If the request must be standalone for some extreme edge case then {{infobox requested}} already exists and this is wholly redundant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge obviously, per Thumperward. The project banner templates include this feature for a reason. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NOT

Also too vague. "May contain material not inappropriate…" okay, what material? Where? Did you discuss this on the talk page? I have never seen this template lead to talkpage discussion of what is unencyclopedic. Morover, I get the feeling that this template was sometimes confused with {{notability}}, as this template used to be called {{unencyclopedic}}. The first few uses I looked for seemed to be confusing it in such a way, and it doesn't look like the naming helped. I feel that the wording's just too vague, either way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment it looks like it should be for any WP:NOT violation, from the name of the template. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment' Previous deletion discussions

The re-naming of this template helped greatly as this template was previously a focus of much contention and drama, prior to it's rename notability was one of those problems, so perhaps if Ten Pound Hammer got the feeling it was confused with {{notability}}, then that is likely because of an historic use of the tag. That this template does not lead to talkpage discussion is true, but it also true for almost all such templates with a talk option.

Weak keep, serves a useful purpose if used correctly. Especially recommend that the {{NOT|section}} be kept as this is specific and therefore more helpful. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, though, even after the rename to {{NOT}}, many of the transclusions seem to date from when it was called {{unencyclopedic}}, and as a result, they still seem to be incorrectly using it as a substitute for {{notability}}. So renaming this hasn't helped. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could go through the historic tagging. It's used on less then 500 articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete I went to three pages that use this template at random and I couldn't see specificly what it refered to. Two of them had red-linked talk pages. It is like a co-worker says to you "There is something about you today I don't like. You better fix it." and then walks away leaving you worried. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment How predictable it is to have a template useful for not-so-experienced editors to use nominated by an experienced editor ~~who finds templates which are useful for not-so-experienced editors to use~~.Curb Chain (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete There is no possible reason for this. It is too vague. If you see something you don't consider proper, you can remove it, or give it a more defining tag so people know what in the article you are referring to. Dream Focus 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Too vague and no use for it. If something was WP:NOT then it would be tagged under speedy deletion or taken to AFD. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Although I think I've used this in the past, the parts of WP:NOT that necessitate cleanup already have specific cleanup tags. Them From Space 17:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think its worth noting that this template is transcluded onto quite a number of pages. Since this appears to be heading for deletion, perhaps we can organize some sort of template roundup/redirection where the current transclusions are replaced with their more specific counterparts before the actual deletion is carried out. Them From Space 17:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started going through the transclusions. Its easy work but will take some time to go through them all. Them From Space 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the rest. Some were simply a means of swapping out for another specific template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - apparently the deed is done, but I think this was putting the cart before the horse. The template's fate should have been decided before removing it en masse. LadyofShalott 02:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep I just used it on an article about a science book, to note that the article was mostly a set of recipes or how-tos, contrary to WP:NOT, and certainly I created a discussion about it on the talk page. This template is an important tool. Edison (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I've also recently used the template[4] on an article that appeared to have no single clear subject. There remain a number of WP:NOT issues that don't have separate templates of their own, and it's useful simply to call attention to articles on subjects that can't support a standalone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And tell me how that's not redundant to the "single coherent topic" tag. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete another useless maintenance tag. If an article is "not appropriate for Wikipedia", then AfD it. Don't just slap a drive by tag on it and leave it to rot. Resolute 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the topic of an article is not appropriate, or if there is no suitable content in an article, it should be nominated for AFD or PROD. A template such as this should be used where only parts of an article are unsuitable, and removing this template could result in problems being unaddressed because of lack of relevant template, or use of {{cleanup}} which is more vague than this one. Peter E. James (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Too vague, if it is WP:NOT then it should just be speedy deleted or AfD'd JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Just like {{cleanup}} it's too vague a tag to be useful. If an article violates part of WP:NOT, then more specific tags can be used. --MuZemike 03:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is not a lot of things and many newer users are unaware of our intricate policies. A quick read over WP:NOT is beneficial for many users and this template serves that purpose. I've used it in the past when I was more active in NPP and I recall some good results. N^oformation ^Talk 06:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete salt, tenderize, and serve with a side of waffle fries. Another useless generic cleanup template with no value whatsoever. The template is way too vague to be of useful in any way. There are many more specific templates that better address the issues with an article {i.e. Template:Advert). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Very vague. "What does it specifically refer to?" ~Feedintm^Parley 01:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Too vague to be actually useful; there are more specific templates and processes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, too vague to be useful. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep : Just found an article that is sort of like a manual and probably violates WP:NOT. The article is probably salvageable however and I do not wish to propose it for deletion without a discussion period. This template is acceptable as a means to initiate that discussion. There may be other templates that could work too but this one fit the purpose and was the first I found after 5 minutes of searching. Quite frankly I'm getting tired of people claiming templates don't serve a purpose or that are too vague. Usually it exposes lack of sufficient imagination to imagine the purpose or experience to know that sometimes vagueness is an asset. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mama's Family

All content was redirected except the episode list — the character bios were all unsourced and full of in-universe plotty stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The template is standard and matches that of plenty of others. - The Real One Returns (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not making sense. Every link on this template redirects to Mama's Family except for the episode list. The template now navigates nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That is because you took it upon yourself to redirect all of the articles back to the Mama's Family article. They articles and template were fine before you began to edit them. The Real One Returns (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I redirected the articles because they were full of in-universe, plot summary and had no relevant content. Which is what you do with such articles — redirect or delete. So now as it is, the template only points back to the Mama's Family article a bunch of times, making it pointless. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedily close as out-of-process, per WP:SPEEDYKEEP criterion 2d "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion": This strikes me as a massive process problem, a blatant fait accompli. The articles should have been taken to AfD first or consensus arrived at (e.g. on the main article's talk page) to merge/redirect them. TfD is completely inappropriate so soon after such WP:BOLD action, given that the R and D parts of WP:BRD are pretty likely to happen, judging from how The Real One Returns feels about the matter. I heartily agree with the redirections and their rationale, mind you, but this TfD is premature. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking them to AFD seems like process for the sake of process. I don't see anyone disputing the redirection yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Real One Returns is obviously disputing it, though may not be aware of how to undo it. Don't split hairs just for the sake of splitting hairs. PS: I didn't say "take it to AfD", I mentioned that as one option. At this point, establishing consensus for the consolidation at Talk:Mama's Family seems like the wise choice. If that happens, then the template can be speedily deleted as uncontroversial maintenance. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_21#Template:Characters on The West Wing for directly comparable "redirect and TfD" issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with saying "you redirected those all yourself, fait accompli is bad" and such is that because it's trivial to set up a support network of navboxes, infoboxes, categories et cetera it is far easier to indefinitely expand fiction elements into a farm of plotcruft than it is to consolidate them again. Similarly, merging fiction character articles back to the main topic is much harder than it should be because it's trivial to wikilawyer over process (if one starts with an AfD it's "AfD is not for merges": if one starts with merges it's "go and get formal consensus"), especially as the majority of the participants on any given subject talk page will be fans of the work and probably significantly less interested in our notability guidelines than the norm. In this particular case, is it likely that all the characters will be spun back out to their own articles? No, not in the slightest. Therefore, let's see about dismantling the support network with as little fuss as possible so as not to encourage that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep for the sake of process. I don't disagree with TPH's assessment that these articles were full of in-universe information and essentially plot summaries, and would probably fail our inclusion guidelines if taken to AFD. However, I'm saying 'keep' purely because I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a single editor can redirect a bunch of articles and then delete the navigational template immediately without seeking wider consensus. In this case, TPH should have got consensus first to get rid of the character articles, either with a discussion on Talk:Mama's Family or an AFD nomination. Alternatively, boldly redirecting them is permissible, but then the navigational template should only be deleted once a certain period of time has passed and it's become clear that no one cares about these articles enough to undo the redirects, in which case consensus can be said to have supported your action. In this case, TPH redirected the articles and nominated the template for deletion the very next day, without waiting to see if the redirects would stand; I think that's being a little too bold. I say, keep the template for now and give it a few weeks to see if anyone bothers to revert the redirects. If not, then it can be deleted. Yes, this is precisely 'process for the sake of process', but it's also the best way to ensure consensus supports your actions. Remember, there is no deadline. Robofish (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your argument isn't making a lick of sense. I can't send the template to TFD just because I redirected the articles? Sounds like process just for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as it has no purpose for redirected articles, and an episode list (there) and a character list (not there, but could be) don't need a nav template. However, I agree with Robofish that it's better to wait a while (at least a week?) before talking the navigation template to TfD, just to be sure that the redirects stick. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 18

[edit] Single ship class templates

Ship templates for classes with only one ship have limited navigation value. The template will never be able to expand. So we have only three links total per template. Brad (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all; useless ritual padding. Classes of ships which have lots of members might realistically get their own navbox, category, index article &c; but duplicating that infrastructure for a "class" of ships with a single member is just silly. bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete all bobrayner (talk) said it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 February 2012‎
Keep and reformat - while as they are the templates are pretty useless and I'd agree that they should be deleted, they can become useful navigational devices, simply by adding "previous class" and "next class" links as I've seen in other ship class infoboxes. A single-ship class is still a class, and providing "directions" like that serves a valid navigational purpose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete all - the navboxes are useful for the reason stated by Bushranger, but that doesn't mean it has to be in template form. See for example USS Wichita (CA-45). Parsecboy (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- If we subst, then any future code changes, accessibility improvements or style tweaks would not be applied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm indifferent if they're kept or not, but they need to be modified as per Bushranger's suggestions or they can be replaced by a table as per Parsecboy's example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Persiraja Banda Aceh

Authors used template for grouping unrelated articles, however once they have been removed there are just two relevant pages. These two articles do not need a navbox. Cloudz 679 15:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Balaghat Railway Junction

This is an article , not a template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Apparently a misguided user creation. Brad (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Speedy as duplicate of Balaghat Junction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Boya naidu

This is an article not a template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Apparently a misguided user creation. Brad (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Note. Possible copy-vio. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Box portal skeleton boya / boyar / gangawaru

This is an an article not a template! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Apparently a misguided user creation. Brad (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Note. Possible copy-vio.

[edit] Template:G-??

Set of unused link templates WOSlinker (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Full demo

No longer appears to be in use. WOSlinker (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Agree with nom; unused template. Gongshow ^Talk 07:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Web-cite

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated for four years, used only on three user subpages— copies of Buddhism that have not been edited for years -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Template:Hollowpoints

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just red links. WOSlinker (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Template:User cc-by-nc-sa

NC Clause is not compatible with Wikipedia terms. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to speedy deletion template would be the better outcome. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Template states "This user's contributions are dual licensed under Wikipedia's copyright terms and Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0" so the grant of licence is compatible. However, at present I can't see why this dual licensing is useful. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You either release a right or you don't. The template is license-confused. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as unused Bulwersator (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The template says that the contributions are multi-licensed. →Σ τ c. 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Charles Finch

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Shoud be an article if notable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 17 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 16

[edit] Old discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 2

[edit] Completed discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

[edit] Archive and Indices

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

[edit] How to use this page

[edit] What not to propose for discussion here

[edit] Reasons to delete a template

[edit] Listing a template

[edit] Discussion

Contents

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] February 23

[edit] Template:JEL code

[edit] Template:Deportivo Independiente Medellin squad

[edit] Template:Uw-dontremovewarnings

[edit] Template:Sustainable energy

[edit] Template:Convert to Infobox Settlement

[edit] Template:Cleanup-tracklist

[edit] Template:Pbrk

[edit] Template:Syrian Air Force

[edit] February 22

[edit] Template:Harvest (band)

[edit] Template:Kavalactones

[edit] Template:B.A.P

[edit] Template:Infobox MLB manager

[edit] Phoenix Suns game logs

[edit] Template:Ann Township

[edit] Template:Jennette McCurdy

[edit] Template:Sleepthief

[edit] Template:Infobox journalist

[edit] February 21

[edit] 2011–12 NBA game logs

[edit] Template:Mocca

[edit] Template:CompactDocToc

[edit] Template:Infobox Paleontology

[edit] Template:Def

[edit] Template:Daybar

[edit] Template:NHLPlayoffTOC

[edit] Template:American Center for Voting Rights

[edit] Template:Cite doi/doi:10.1371.2Fjournal.pbio.0040202

[edit] Template:ColorTOC

[edit] Template:ListOfMuseumsByUSStateTOC

[edit] Template:ListByUSStateTOC

[edit] Template:TOC nest right

[edit] Template:More plot

[edit] Template:Characters on The West Wing

[edit] Template:Kevin Harvick Inc.

[edit] Template:THBSOIR

[edit] February 20

[edit] Template:Hurricane season bar gap

[edit] Template:Grey's Anatomy Season 1

[edit] Template:McGuinness Flint

[edit] Template:Macadoshis

[edit] Template:Independent

[edit] Template:Fukushima I nuclear accidents/about

[edit] Template:CompactTOCrefs

[edit] Template:Lockheed Constellation production list TOC

[edit] Template:TOCDecades

[edit] Template:TOCDecades50

[edit] Template:CompactEMD

[edit] Template:CompactTOC8CYM

[edit] Template:GeoTemplate/TOC

[edit] Template:MTGkeywordsTOC

[edit] Template:TOCMonths3

[edit] Template:TOCContinents

[edit] Template:C20YearTOCship

[edit] Template:TOC US states 1

[edit] Template:TOC US 48 states 2

[edit] Template:TOCPremSeasons

[edit] Template:AFC Challenge Cup squads

[edit] Template:Nonumtoc

[edit] Template:CompactTOC8/Dev1

[edit] Template:CONMEBOL TOC

[edit] Template:FGC stations

[edit] CFL team seasons navboxes

[edit] Template:Lumpkin County, Georgia

[edit] Template:NDP Leaders

[edit] Template:Rushden & Diamonds F.C. squad

[edit] February 19

[edit] Template:Good GIF

[edit] Ballet multicolumn formatting templates

[edit] Template:Zakouski

[edit] Template:Zvezda aft